Thanks, Curtis, for your considerate words. This seems to be the first constructive message in the topic. I think we can close it now.
I issued a public apology and in several emails I explained what I meant (with grammatical arguments and reference to the Subject line) and that I was sorry if my original email could be interpreted in unintended ways. What else can I do? After that I don't think Jim's response was necessary. You consider an ill formulated sentence inappropriate, I consider it a composition error, but in any case we are all clear about it. Should I use a signature, saying that I don't necessarily mean what you think I do, because English is my third language? Laszlo > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: P1619: Errors happen > From: "Curtis Anderson" > Date: Tue, May 30, 2006 1:45 pm > > Laszlo, > > > >> Publishing email addresses looks like a cheap way to silence > > >> someone in the reflector: the spammers do the dirty work for free. > > > > > I read this as an inappropriate, public and undeserved attack > > > > It does not do any good, if you take a sentence out of context and > > attributes it unintended meanings. You force me to explain it the > > fourth time: this sentence describes the danger of publishing email > > addresses on the reflector. I did NOT say any of the following: > > - Someone did it intentionally > > - It was an attempt to silence me > > - It has happened > > Whether you intended your email to convey those meanings or not I do > not know, but I believe that your email did imply those meanings. > Text email is a delicate thing, there are none of the usual non-verbal > clues as to the intention and emotional state of the person talking. > A statement with an earnest expression on my face is very different > than the same statement with a frown on my face. That is lost in > email unless the email is carefully crafted. My suggestion is that > you work much harder at crafting your communications to others so as > to reduce the possibility of misunderstandings of your intent. > > > > anyone using this email reflector to > > > publicly besmirch the reputation of any other member of this > > > group will not be tolerated. > > > > I have explained publicly already three times what I meant, but you > > still bring it up. What is your purpose? The sentence could be > > ambiguous or unclear, but it can hardly be a base of attacking someone > > (me), who learned English as a third language in his late forties. Dou > > you think attacking me with an out of context sentence does > > any good to my reputation, and it is just and fair? > > The analogy that I use for communications might be valuable here, but > if not, please feel free to ignore it. The goal of clear communications > is to get a picture to form in the other person's mind. It is simply > irrelevant what the talker thinks they are saying, the only important > point is what picture the listener is forming in their mind. As the > talker, I need to use whatever words are required to get that picture > to form in the way that I want it to. Yes, this is reverse engineering > the listener's brain, which is why good communications takes lots of > work and thought. My opinion is that this is one of the very few > effective ways to engineer good inter-personal communications. > > > > Because of the communications that I have received on this subject > > > stating that they felt your email was a personal attack on Shai I > > > have sent this email to the entire list and to the archive. If you > > > want to continue this discussion, take it off the reflector and > > > continue the discussion with Jack, Curtis (P1619 sponsors) as well as > > > Serge and myself. > > > > I disagree with your proposal. You mounted a public attack on me, based > > on an out of context citation from my email, after I explained publicly > > several times what it meant. It affects my reputation. Nevertheless, if > > the majority of the members of the WG think, this does not belong to > > the reflector, I have to obey. (That is, a perceived attack on one > > member's reputation is a public matter, but an actual attack > > on another member's reputation is private). So far it was only your request. > > I do not believe that Jim, John, and my response to you is an attack. Your > original email was inappropriate and our response is what the "sponsor" > of a group should do, enforce the rules of professional conduct and make > it clear to all concerned that the email in question was not appropriate > and that future occurences of similar content will not be tolerated. Note > that "all concerned" includes everyone on the email reflector as they were > witness to the bad behavior and need to know that steps have been taken to > protect them from recurrence. > > Please do not confuse the voting that happens as part of developing a > standard with voting on how a working group functions internally. The > IEEE has legal responsibilities to working group members and in return > for those responsibilities has authority over how working groups conduct > themselves. Professional conduct in meetings and email is not one of > those things that is open to consensus or to debate. > > Thanks, > > Curtis
